Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Power of Race

November 3, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Thomas J. Espenshade, a professor of sociology at Princeton University, used that question to answer a question about his new book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton University Press), co-written with Alexandria Walton Radford, a research associate at MPR Associates. In fact, he could probably use the glass image to answer questions about numerous parts of the book.

While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)

Unlike much writing about affirmative action, this book is based not on philosophy, but actual data -- both on academic credentials and student experiences -- from 9,000 students who attended one of 10 highly selective colleges and universities. (They are not named, but include public and private institutions, research universities and liberal arts colleges.)

Among the findings:

  • Significant advantages and disadvantages exist for members of some racial and ethnic groups with regard to the SAT or ACT scores they need to have the same odds of admission as members of other groups. While advantages and disadvantages were also found based on economic class, these were far less significant than those based on race and ethnicity.
  • Just about every existing idea for reforming college admissions would not, by itself, preserve current levels of racial and ethnic diversity -- if current affirmative action policies were eliminated or scaled back.
  • Most undergraduates at the institutions studied do have significant interactions with members of different races and ethnicities, and these interactions result in learning about the experiences of different groups. At the same time, the data suggest significant gaps in the kinds of meaningful cross-race interactions that take place with some groups much more likely than others to have such interactions. (By far, the most common interactions are white-Latino, while the least common are black-white).
  • On measures of academic performance, graduation rates across racial and ethnic groups show only modest gaps at the institutions studied. But analysis of class rank suggests major gaps in academic performance. More than half of black students and nearly one-third of Latino students who graduated from the colleges studied, for example, finished in the bottom quintile of their classes.

Based on these findings, and the reality that some states have barred affirmative action and that the U.S. Supreme Court's blessing for consideration of race in admissions came with a 25-year time limit, the authors suggest that it's time for a massive federally supported effort, equivalent in intensity to the Manhattan Project, to determine the source of academic achievement gaps and to develop plans to shrink them.

The Test Score Advantage

Among the potential bombshells in the book are data on the advantages or disadvantages of SAT or ACT scores by race, ethnicity and economic class. Many studies -- including those released annually by the College Board and the ACT -- show gaps in the average tests scores by members of different racial or ethnic groups. This research takes that further, however, by controlling for numerous factors, including gender, status as an athlete or alumni child, high school grades and test scores, type of high school attended and so forth.

The "advantage" referred to, to take an example from the book, is what it would take to have equivalent odds of admission, after controlling for other factors. So the table's figure of a 3.8 black ACT "advantage" means that a black student with an ACT score of 27 would have the same chances of admission at the institutions in the study as a white student with a score of 30.8.

As the following table shows, there are large black advantages in the way colleges consider SAT and ACT scores, and notable disadvantages for Asian applicants. On issues of wealth, the SAT shows an expected affirmative action tilt, with the most disadvantaged students gaining and the wealthiest losing. But there is also a gain for upper middle class students. On the ACT, analysis found the advantages go to wealthier students.

The table uses ACT scores for public institutions and SAT scores for privates. The "norm" score was considered white for the race section, and middle class for the class section.

Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997

Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race    
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140
Class    
--Lower -0.1 +130
--Working +0.0 +70
--Middle -- --
--Upper-Middle +0.3 +50
--Upper +0.4 -30

Much of the debate about affirmative action historically has focused on the advantages given to those from some minority groups. But the research in No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal may also be of particular interest to advocates for Asian students. Many such advocates and guidance counselors who serve those students have charged in recent years that elite colleges have de facto higher standards for Asian applicants. Is the Asian disadvantage of 3.4 points on the ACT and 140 points on the SAT evidence to bolster that claim?

Espenshade said in an interview that he does not think his data establish this bias. He noted that while his formulas are notably more complete than typical test score comparisons by race and ethnicity, he doesn't have the "softer variables," such as teacher and high school counselor recommendations, essays and lists of extracurricular activities. It is possible, he said, that such factors explain some of the apparent SAT and ACT disadvantage facing Asian applicants.

At the same time, he said he understood that these numbers would certainly not reassure Asian applicants or those who believe they are suffering discrimination.

"I understand the worry of Asian students, but do I have a smoking gun? No," he said.

As to the large racial gaps on SAT scores, he said it was "distressing" in that it showed the difficulties colleges face in using their traditional criteria for admissions and still producing diverse student bodies.

The book notes that dropping the SAT or ACT as requirements would result in gains for black and Latino students. Espenshade has given papers previously showing that the biggest gains in such models are for colleges that drop consideration of testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution -- Sarah Lawrence College -- has taken that step.)

Beyond shifting test policies, may other ideas have been proposed over the years to achieve a racially diverse student body without affirmative action as currently practiced. Here the book is quite discouraging. It reviews simulations based on class-based affirmative action (extra points for low-income applicants), reducing the emphasis given to academic credentials and priority admissions for those in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. And the book considers various combinations of these policies, looking for a formula that would yield diversity similar to what colleges have obtained to date.

"In this exhaustive examination of a wide variety of potential admissions policies, we have looked for but have not found any feasible policy alternative to the current practice of race-sensitive admission that has the capacity to generate the same minority student representation on campus," the book says. "The closest we have come among private institutions is a 15 percent minority student share among all students, achieved by lifting affirmative action, adding more weight for low-income students, and paying no attention whatsoever to students' academic qualifications. This policy stands no chance of being implemented at any academically selective institution."

Do Students Mix?

The new book doesn't just explore how students get into college, but what happens with them once there -- especially in terms of interactions with people from different backgrounds. The book notes that this is a question with important legal ramifications because colleges have justified affirmative action by pointing to the educational value of educating students in heterogeneous groups.

Here, the book finds evidence of significant interactions outside students' own racial and ethnic groups.

  • 62.8 percent said that they often or very often socialize with someone of a different race.
  • 51.2 percent of students reported having lived with at least one student of a different race.
  • 50.9 percent of students reported having a "close friendship" with at least one student of a different race.
  • 35.8 percent of students reported having dated at least one person of a different race.

The figures reflect all students, so the numbers are boosted in part by minority students on largely white campuses who may have relatively few fellow minority students with whom to interact.

Espenshade said that there is "no gold standard" for how much social interaction one would like to see among members of different groups, so it's hard to judge whether these numbers over all reflect positive or negative news. But he was heartened, he said, that survey questions showing that students who developed friendships across racial lines reported learning from those perspectives and gaining from the experience. Generally, he said, students reported the most gains in understanding coming from informal activities, such as socializing, and not from formal activities.

So if a college wants to encourage this sort of relationship, Espenshade said he would favor random freshman roommate selection, so more students end up living with people different from themselves, and policies that encourage groups that are based on race or ethnicity to co-sponsor events with other groups. But Espenshade said that the data suggest students are not moved by formal requirements. "I wouldn't advise diversity training," he said. "Students react negatively if they think they are being forced to take a diversity orientation session."

Across the various types of cross-racial interactions, not all groups interact evenly. Looking at who interacts, the data give the following order of likelihood: white-Hispanic, white-Asian, Hispanic-Asian, black-Hispanic, black-Asian, black-white.

The data in the book also suggest that ethnic studies courses are reaching a significant minority of all college students, but that the percentages of students at the colleges studied who majored or minored in them is extremely small, even with regard to their own groups. Nearly 40 percent of students at the colleges studied -- including nearly one third of white students -- took at least one ethnic studies course. But only 2.2 percent of students are majoring.

Ethnic Studies Coursework, by Race

  Total White Black Hispanic Asian
African-American studies          
--Major 0.5% 0.2% 4.2% 0.3% 0.3%
--Minor 1.4% 1.0% 7.7% 0.7% 0.4%
--Course 24.3% 20.9% 75.6% 20.9% 15.1%
Chicano/Latino studies          
--Major 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 4.5% 0.4%
--Minor 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 5.4% 1.1%
--Course 12.1% 10.9% 19.0% 40.7% 6.3%
Asian-American studies          
--Major 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.2% 3.7%
--Minor 1.0% 0.4% 1.2% 0.7% 4.7%
--Course 17.3% 12.8% 14.7% 13.2% 52.2%
One or more of the above          
--Major 2.2% 1.4% 5.5% 5.1% 4.2%
--Minor 3.6% 2.6% 9.5% 6.2% 5.8%
--Course 39.6% 32.4% 79.8% 51.2% 58.5%

Measures of Academic Success

One of the most sensitive issues in discussions of affirmative action concerns academic success. Critics of affirmative action have long argued that the intended beneficiaries are in fact victims, because they might have more success in college -- and gain more confidence in themselves -- at less selective colleges. This "mismatch theory" was recently repudiated in a landmark study of public flagships, the book Crossing the Finish Line. That book found that minority students have the greatest level of success (measured by graduating) at the most competitive institution that admits them.

With regard to academic performance at the colleges studied in No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, the data on graduation rates largely back the conclusions of Crossing the Finish Line. The average six-year graduation rates for these institutions is 89 percent, with Asian students most likely to graduate (92 percent) and black students the least likely (78 percent). Similarly, those from the upper classes are more likely (90 percent) to graduate than those from working class families (79 percent). But here, even the numbers for black students and working class students far exceed national averages, and many institutions report much larger gaps by ethnic and racial groups.

It is among graduates that the new data raise questions about academic performance, because there are large differences in academic achievement (as judged by class rank) found both by race and economic class.

Class Rank by Race and Economic Class

Group Highest Quintile Second Highest Quintile Middle Quintile Second Lowest Quintile Lowest Quintile
Race          
--White 25.5% 20.8% 20.6% 17.3% 15.8%
--Black 4.8% 8.2% 13.6% 23.0% 50.5%
--Hispanic 9.3% 13.1% 17.1% 27.7% 32.8%
--Asian 20.2% 20.7% 21.9% 20.4% 16.9%
Economic class          
--Lower and working 13.0% 10.9% 19.9% 20.1% 36.1%
--Middle 20.3% 18.6% 19.2% 20.7% 21.1%
--Upper and upper middle 25.7% 21.6% 20.8% 16.9% 15.0%

Asked about the class rank data, Radford said that she doesn't think it's very significant, compared to the graduation rate data, which show that minority students are finishing their degrees.

"How much does a G.P.A. difference affect your life?" she asked. "It's not preventing these students from attending prestigious graduate schools or going on to have successful careers."

Espenshade said that he realized that there are data in the book that will be embraced by people on all sides of the debates over affirmative action. Describing himself as a "staunch moderate" on such issues, he said he will be pleased if advocates with differing views find evidence they like in the study.

"My main objective here is to be a mouthpiece for the data," he said. "My job is to let the data talk. What I may or may not feel about affirmative action doesn't matter. What matters is how the Supreme Court feels about it and how the voters feel about it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Power of Race

  • Racial discrimination is just not worth it
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on November 3, 2009 at 7:30am EST
  • There are two forests here that should not be obscured by the trees: First, there is a lot of racial discrimination in admissions taking place; and, second, the purported beneficiaries of such discrimination perform significantly worse academically than other students. The justification for such discrimination is the supposed educational benefits of a racially diverse student body. Those benefits are dubious, but even if they exist, they are simply not worth the costs of racial discrimination, namely: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school; it encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it mismatches students and institutions, guaranteeing failure or academic underperformance for many of the former; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership.

  • American Indians - the forgotten group again
  • Posted by RR on November 3, 2009 at 8:30am EST
  • Once again it seems that a research study on race and ethnicity completely leaves out American Indians. As an American Indian, I, and my people, have been left out of most academic and government research on everything from health to education, not to mention political science (we are in too many anthropology books and legal case studies).
    The rationale is that there are too few of us to make a statistical sample for a study on contemporary American Indian interactions outside of a reservation community. The interaction between American Indian student and those of other races and ethnic groups would actually prove to be quite revealing about how contemporary American Indian students negotiate the non-native world.
    Maybe numbers is the problem, there are too few of us, period. We are confronted with issues of tribal recognition restrictions and attacks, and tribal enrollment and dis-enrollment, that no other group in North America has to deal with, all to the benefit of keeping our numbers small and manageable by the government.
    Why am I not surprised that once again we are left out of a research study on race and ethnicity at college campuses.

  • A response to Roger...
  • Posted by Carson Byrd on November 3, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • Roger, we really need to get you a better set of reading glasses. There has been an enormous amount of research since 1990 that refutes most of the claims you make in your comment and the rest have had mixed results. Are we to simply forget the historical discrimination and the structural inequality in society that exists today when we discuss college admissions? Is it all about today and not yesterday with this debate? If so, perhaps you should change your center's name to something that does not create a mismatch hypothesis of its own, one where equal opportunity is anything but what you are attempting to provide for individuals in American society. If you want equal opportunity, you need to create equality of condition first. Perhaps revisiting the foundations of this argument between Takaki and Glazer would be helpful. Besides, when has equal opportunity stopped with grades and standardized tests in college admissions? Espenshade and several of his colleagues have noted how non-equal opportunity college admissions at many institutions are when looking at three college admissions programs the benefit different groups of students (minority, legacy, and athletes) as well as the differentiated graduation rates and GPAs of these students that refute several of your claims. I have one question which relates to your mention of those "dubious" benefits of racially diverse student bodies. What makes them dubious, Roger?

  • Well Said
  • Posted by Common Sense on November 3, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • Well said Roger Clegg. Discrimination in any form is ugly, and racial preferences must go; they should have been gone a long time ago. Only the best should be admitted or hired into what they do; individuals are not equal, and never have been, in most terms of intelligence, athletic ability, or artistic intuition. You must take what you are are given and make the very best of it, and be happy with the results you get; the reliance upon groups that make us feel like we are entitled to more than we deserve is depolorable. Eventually we must come to the conclusion that individuals are in charge of their own path and destiny through hard work, and individual responsibility and accountabilitiy for their own actions. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it"

  • Posted by sean on November 3, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • as an education professor, my goal isn't to teach the students who all score the highest on the SAT. perhaps Roger and "Common Sense" posters want that, but i find that having a diverse class helps me teach my curriculum far more effectively. we are required by our accrediting body to prepare teachers to teach in a heterogeneous world and having a homogeneous student body runs counter to our goals. i can try and prepare my students to teach in an inner city school but it's far more effective if a student actually attended this school who can share her experiences and give that extra rationale for the classroom management or learning strategies i am teaching. the same can be said for having students who attended a private Christian school or a school in a rural setting, etc. -- the diverse student body helps the curriculum i teach and that value is lost if a university goes on test scores alone.

  • What's the alternative?
  • Posted by Amy on November 3, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • Roger - if affirmative action isn't the best way to ensure access to higher education for underrepresented groups in our society, then what is? Rather than criticizing existing actions aimed at expanding educational opportunities, why not come forward with a proactive proposal for alternative means of achieving these ends? Or do the ends not interest you and your Center?

  • affirmative action at grad school
  • Posted by rightwingprofessor on November 3, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • ""How much does a G.P.A. difference affect your life?" she asked. "It's not preventing these students from attending prestigious graduate schools or going on to have successful careers.""

    This is my favorite quote. The point here is even after the student gets into college from affirmative action, then finishes a the bottom of his class, affirmative action kicks in again to get him into graduate school.

    Can anyone honestly believe a black Harvard graduate, who just received the finest education in the world, should then receive affirmative action on applying to law school?

  • Posted by ML on November 3, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • If you honestly think that everyone has a "fair" shot and that it is just a matter of working harder, perhaps you haven't been looking close enough. From the tests, to admissions processes, to the high school you went to are factors that play into whether or not someone goes to college. What if you lived in a rural area that didn't give you all of the classes you need to be that competitive applicant? What if you had poor teachers who did not prepare you for college? Are you just supposed to resolve yourself that the best you can get is maybe a community college, because that is your lot in life? I agree that discrimination is ugly, but discrimination is all over the system. I will be happy when someone comes up with an inclusive excellence admissions model. Maybe then we will begin to see equality in the system.

  • Curious
  • Posted by Matthew , Associate Professor on November 3, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • Mr. Clegg, I am curious to know what is "the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive"? Also, how do you see American Indians--the missing group-- fitting into this debate? Is their history irrelevant to their current condition?

  • Roger's response to Carson
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on November 3, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • There are lots of problems with attempting to justify racial preferences because of historical and societal discrimination, but here’s the short answer: The Supreme Court has rejected that justification, which is why universities rely on the purported educational benefits of a racially diverse student body. For a short discussion of why I find this justification “dubious,” see the amicus brief we filed in the University of Michigan cases: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/239/99/ . The empirical basis of those benefits is weak (pages 21-22), as they are as a matter of theory and common sense (pages 19-20). Plus, do you really want to allow racial discrimination whenever someone can come up with some social-science “data”? The segregationists had plenty of social scientists working for them, too (pages 22-26). In any event, as I said in my first post, the costs overwhelm any benefits.

    Let me make clear that I don’t particularly care what criteria schools use to admit students, so long as it’s not skin color or what country their ancestors came from. I doubt very much, though, that the big gaps in standardized test scores and high-school grades can be explained away because, say, African American students tend to get overwhelmingly better teacher recommendations, have more extracurricular activities, are write really terrific application essays, compared to, say, Asian Americans. Nor do I see how preferences for alumni and athletes (which I’m not wild about either) justify racial discrimination or “refute” my claims.

    Racial discrimination is bad. Schools should stop engaging in it.

  • American Indians remain invisible
  • Posted by John , Assistant Professor/Rehab Counseling at Alabama State University on November 3, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • I agree with RR on American Indian invisiblity. Thanks for posting. I often feel like the lone voice in making this case. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that leaving American Indians out of a quantitative analysis requires further discussion when studying college students. Researchers should always acknowledge who is missing from their data analysis and why when reporting on racial/ethnic groups. Not doing so, is unethical and keeps American Indian college students in the margins, at best, and most likely invisible.

  • Roger's response to Amy and Matthew
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on November 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • The principal hurdles facing African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans in 2009 are cultural within those communities, not societal discrimination. For example, and in particular, those groups have out-of-wedlock birthrates way about the national average (which is also appallingly high). Thus, seven out of ten African Americans are born out of wedlock. Growing up without a father has a strong correlation with all kinds of social problems, including not doing well in school, dropping out of school, getting into trouble with the law, and so forth -- and, needless to say, does not correlate with getting into our most selective schools. There are other cultural problems as well, such as thinking that studying hard is "acting white." Let me hasten to add that there are many whites and Asians who are born out of wedlock and who don't study hard, and there are plenty of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans who come from intact families and who do study hard. But if the issue is how to address these racial disparities, then we have to look at aggregates.
    Past discrimination is one reason the playing field is not level, but there are other reasons and, in any event, there are people of all colors at both ends of the playing field. If we want to level the playing field, then there is no reason to assume that, for example, all blacks are poor and that all whites are rich (and, in fact, the overwhelming majority -- 86 percent, according to Bowen and Bok -- of African Americans admitted to the more selective schools come from upper- or middle-class backgrounds).

    The solutions are not simple. In particular, the problem of illegitimacy is a moral one that will have to be addressed by individuals and little platoons, including churches. People in failing public school systems should have more choice in deciding where to send their children to schools. And parents need to insist on their children studying hard. These problems, in any event, will not be solved by racial discrimination.

  • Roger, Roger, Roger . . .
  • Posted by Kevin on November 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Roger,

    You fail to understand that by pretending that race doesn't exist, you are continuing to privilege a particular set of students -- here, specifically, white and Asian students -- at the expense of another group of students.

    You are, in fact, suggesting that we ought not, as a society, to continue to redress the severe discrimination that blacks, Latinos, and American Indians *continue* to face in our society. Individuals like you would seem to prefer to look at the legal end of discrimination and wash your hands of the matter, and then proceed directly back to blaming under-performing minorities for their predicaments without addressing the systemic racism that they are confronted with each and every day.

    People do not ignore race. White people who claim to be "color-blind" may have noble intentions, but they are actually marginalizing people of other ethnic groups by pretending that everyone is, essentially, culturally white and capable of "acting white." Even if this were the case, this would not eliminate the privilege that whites have over other ethnic groups, simply by virtue of their skin color.

    Systemic racism and its severe problems are still present in our country. For that matter, so is class warfare, perpetrated by the wealthy against the rest of society. We ought not to ignore these real problems.

    When you decry overlooking more qualified applicants for less qualified applicants of a different skin color, you ignore the degree to which those "more qualified" applicants also have, by virtue of their inherited privilege, significantly more opportunities in our society.

  • common sense?
  • Posted by random thoughts at mid-sized public university on November 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • "Only the best should be admitted or hired"? How does that work in institutions with access missions that are supposed to educate a broad cross-section of the population? What does it even mean to be the "best" in that context?

    Yes, "individuals are in charge of their own path and destiny" in the sense of how well they play the hand they are dealt. But many students (poor rural white as well as urban black, etc.) are dealt crummy hands (poor schools, limited financial resources) that limit their opportunities. My achievements are the result of my hard work -- and of the opportunities I was given by parents who believed in education, by a middle class standard of living that allowed me to go to school, and by great schools and teachers. Our society benefits when all contribute in keeping with their potential and their labor, and not only in keeping with the circumstances of their birth. That is true, merit-based opportunity -- and common sense.

  • Mismatch analyses from Crossing the Finish Line
  • Posted by Jane Yakowitz , Director, Project SEAPHE on November 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • FYI, for those who followed the mismatch analyses presented in Crossing the Finish Line, I'm not sure the data show what the authors say they show. Chapter 11 presents some tables showing that black college students at the most selective "SEL I" schools graduate at higher rates than other colleges, but controls for entering credentials are so crude that the pattern could be explained entirely by selection bias (i.e. black students at the "SEL I" institutions had higher high school GPAs than the students at the "SEL II" and lower tiers.)

    The regression results reported in Table 11.1 of the online appendix (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8971.html) control for background characteristics and entering credentials. The regression in the last column is the only one relevant since the others, inexplicably, fail to control for high school GPA. The advantage to attending a SEL I institution goes away completely when comparing SEL I schools to all but the least selective (SEL B) institutions. And the SEL I to SEL B comparison is the most suspect since the student at a SEL I institution probably has unobserved strengths over the SEL B student with similar entering credentials.

  • Posted by invisible hand on November 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Okay, sign up to take the place of the Almighty and see what can be done to make the Design more Intelligent, OR speed up social evolution, whatever your choice. I did not take biology in high school, so I don't understand these things. I think (didn't JFK say the same) that "life is unfair." Some people are born in San Francisco, but some in impoverished areas of the world--not to the credit of the one, or the fault of the other. But who is going to become The Great Equalizer? The Admissions Department? They cannot do it. Cannot be done. Some go to great high schools, some to little piddly places, and some to underfunded horrors. Is the Admissions Department supposed to equalize all that? I teach Freshman Composition. My students come in, all full of hope and expectations. Lordy mercy, you politically correct nabobs, am I the one who you think is going to equalize these students' opportunities? I can't, and I have tried my best.

  • common sense?
  • Posted by random thoughts at mid-size public university on November 3, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • "Only the best should be admitted or hired"? How does that work in institutions with access missions that are supposed to educate a broad cross-section of the population? What does it even mean to be the "best" in that context?

    Yes, "individuals are in charge of their own path and destiny" in the sense of how well they play the hand they are dealt. But many students (poor rural white as well as urban black, etc.) are dealt crummy hands (poor schools, limited financial resources) that limit their opportunities. My achievements are the result of my hard work -- and of the opportunities I was given by parents who believed in education, by a middle class standard of living that allowed me to go to school, and by great schools and teachers. Our society benefits when all contribute in keeping with their potential and their labor, and not only in keeping with the circumstances of their birth. That is true, merit-based opportunity.

  • The messenger and the message
  • Posted by Matt on November 3, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • I would suggest that people reading Mr. Clegg's comments also read some of the essays he has written on his organization's web site. The full scope of his message should be clear then. It's always good to understand someone's motives and full position when considering the validity of his current position. These essays told me exactly what I needed to know.

  • American Indians and FERPA
  • Posted by George on November 3, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • RR, as an external state government employee who reviews what higher education is doing, I'd love to be able to conduct the analysis of American Indians that you need. Unfortunately the student level data needed for this analysis is almost impossible to obtain due to FERPA constraints. Unless American Indians are aggregated into "Other" what I most often recieve is perturbed data that is useless for analysis of the subgroup.

  • Posted by Observer on November 3, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • I've always found the "critical mass" justification for preferential admission criteria for Black and Hispanic students curious. If it takes roughly 5-10% of the class to reach "critical mass", where does that leave the handful of American Indians?

    Of course, one suspects that "critical mass" is really just an excuse for an admissions process which results in class demographics that somehow remarkably match overall population fractions. The common term for this quota.

    To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts, the way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race.

  • tough one
  • Posted by Admissions Director on November 3, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • This is a tough situation, but I am finally glad to see someone advocate for personal accountability. Ultimately, the student is responsible for meeting admission expectations, and it is the student who will benefit/suffer from ill-advised admission politices/practices.

    As an admission director at a public institution, I view many applications. I am pressured to recognize diversity, but of course, that word is code for racial preferences. And not really all races, mostly African-Americans. Those are the students we want more than others. When we admit bi-racial students we are criticized that, well, we can't really tell that they're diverse now can we?

    I find it repugnant that our expectations for students are so low that we feel we need to admit based on skin color or eye shape. I agree that students often need to be encouraged or that their achievement within their context needs to be recognized. No question. But our superficial, politically correct, liberal academe hogwash is all a disguise for white guilt.

  • Posted by andy on November 3, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Did I read someone say "take what you are given????" Are you serious? Some people (lots of them poor and minority) are given society-permitted substandard education, which has long term implications for their (and their children's) lives. Take what you are given? What happened to the land of opportunity? And what better American institution than education (a human resource development institution) should provide opportunities for those given crap circumstances and underfunded schools by our "democratic" society? And really, do we really believe there is any difference at all between a black kid scoring 27 and a white kid scoring 30 on the ACT? They are both equally smart!!! Don't get so hung up on these indicators-they are only indicators!! (I'm a former high school science teacher). They do nothing to tell you of the totality of someone's potential and ability to learn. I have seen it in myself and children I taught in the inner city (several of whom did not score that well and several of whom are now doctors, lawyers, accountants at Deloitte.) Will all kids (black, white, other) live up to their potential? No. But to think that these institutions should only serve those who have advantages from the beginning is racist, classist. When will people stop arguing over the few spots that black and hispanic kids get? If they are the best from their neighborhoods and schools, they should get a shot at the best.

  • To hell with the 'power' of race
  • Posted by DFS on November 3, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • And, while we're at it:

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/02/admit

    When are we just going to rely on what we have accomplished? Do we always need some nanny? Do we need a helicopter parent, or something?

    Whaaah!

  • A very tough issue
  • Posted by Patrick Mattimore , Retired teacher on November 3, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Both sides make good points which is why this is such a very tough issue confounding the courts, universities and individuals. Asian-Americans get screwed. Other under-represented minorities generally face societal and psychological (i.e. stereotype threat) challenges that make it more difficult for them to compete academically.

    Where I generally disagree with Mr. Clegg however is in his facile solution.
    " Let me make clear that I don’t particularly care what criteria schools use to admit students, so long as it’s not skin color or what country their ancestors came from.... Nor do I see how preferences for alumni and athletes (which I’m not wild about either) justify racial discrimination or “refute” my claims."

    Let's take that one third of "hooked" applicants at highly selective colleges (Daniel Golden's figure from "The Price of Admission") up to a 60% figure cited in the same book and based on an estimate at one Ivy league school and use that as justification for racial affirmative action. How many black crew kids were recruited by Princeton last year? How about Spanish lacrosse players at Duke? Or Native American squash players at Yale? Of that quarter of the freshman class who were admitted as legacies at Notre Dame this year, what percentage fell into any of those three racial groups?
    It's not enough Mr. Clegg to say you're not wild about legacy preferences but... But what?
    And I do care about the criteria these schools use to admit kids. Why does that crew kid get a preference? Sure she worked hard, but she also had one very important opportunity that simply did not exist for her sister of color. We've got so many under the radar grandfather type clauses in college admissions that favor white kids that it's a bit of a joke to then attack racial preferences and pretend all the benefits are going to blacks and Hispanics.
    I'm generally against racial preferences in admissions but as long as admissions continue to be stacked against non-Asian minorities, I think schools must make accommodations. Two wrongs don't make the system right but unless and until we can provide all kids somewhat like opportunities, the wrongs at least balance each other out a bit.

  • Looking Backwards
  • Posted by LAJerry , NSCS on November 3, 2009 at 3:15pm EST
  • Its both disturbing and disgusting to hear and read people in academe advocate FOR discrimination (regardless of what you want to call it).

    Discrimination is immoral. To try and justify it by claiming to offset other discrimination is beneath an educated person. Do you survey your students each term to find out who is recieving Pell? Do you give preferential treatment to those students on exams? Why not? They obviously have fewer resources.

    If giving preferential treatment for Admissions is acceptable, why stop there? Why not continue through the student's entire academic career - every course, every term? Or is the student no longer discriminated against once he/she is admitted to college?

  • Posted by George on November 3, 2009 at 3:15pm EST
  • I've just got to call you on equating legacy admits to affirmative action. Legacy status is individual-based and most whites do not qualify for any significant benefit (e.g., is there really a legacy value to graduating from UMKC, to pick a school out of my hat). On the other hand, affirmative action preferences accrue to ALL self-identified members of a group. Indeed, when you take into account the effect of legacies, as well as the much higher than predicted prevalence of Jewish Americans in academia, its likely that non-Jewish, non-legacy whites, particularly poor whites, are at a significant disadvantage in a competitive admissions environment (although not as royally screwed as Asian kids).

  • Agree with Roger
  • Posted by Agree with Roger on November 3, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • I love to watch pro-preferences people turn and twist, fumble and finagle, when the facts are made clear. They ask, somewhat in depseration, "If you don't like preferences, then what is your solution to under-represented minorities?" Here's one: admit people to colleges and hire people based on merit alone. I am a firm believer that what you reward, you will get more of, and what you fail to reward, you will get less of. Presently, we reward "I am entitled because of my race, so give me something I could not earn on merit." Naturally, we get more of that entitlement attitude. If we reward merit, we will get more merit. It seems like a simple choice. Use merit as the sole criterion, and people will develop more merit. It may takes time, but when an entitlement mentality gains them nothing, the smarter ones will get moving and develop more merit.

  • Missing the point
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Department of Mathematics at DePaul University on November 3, 2009 at 7:30pm EST
  • The article misses the point. The purpose of affirmative action is to equal rewards rather than to equalize achievement. It essentially institutionalizes a system whereby the rewards of society such as admission to top colleges, graduate and professional schools, jobs at the best companies, law firms and hospitals, contracts for government projects and so on are allocated according to different standards for different groups. The whole point is to reduce the income and rewards gap without doing the work of reducing the achievement gaps.

    Requiring separate and lower standards for black applicants to colleges and graduate programs essentially guaranteed that the educational gap between whites and blacks would never be narrowed. It offered a way for society to close some of the economic disparity between whites and blacks without doing a whole lot of work and spending a whole lot of resources. It is no wonder that corporate executives and college administrators loved it.

    The actual statistics provided in this article are not encouraging. It indicates that admitting students with lesser credentials does not lessen the achievement gap. Students who enter with lesser qualifications, leave with lower GPAs.

    There are exceptions. There are certainly many cases of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who have taken advantage of the opportunities offered by elite colleges to become outstanding students and to go on to stellar careers. For this reason I would favor continuing to recruit promising students from schools and school districts that are academically weaker. Common sense dictates that in such cases, admissions offices should look beyond scores on standardized exams.

    I would also favor efforts to strengthen K-12 education as well as efforts to create a safer environment for children. And I would demand strict enforcement of laws against discrimination.

    But I believe the effort should be placed on improving the achievement from disadvantaged populations, not simply the rewards. Setting lower standards creates disincentives to closing the achievement gap, particularly if it occurs at all stages in the educational process from placement in schools, to college admissions to post graduate employment opportunities.

    Had the focus been on closing the achievement gap rather than circumventing it, I believe we would be looking at a very different situation today. There is no way to prove that paths not taken would have produced better results. Life is not an experiment in a laboratory. But I think the evidence discussed in this article indicates that what we are now doing is not working very well. Perhaps it is time to try something different.

  • Posted by chaosakita on November 3, 2009 at 11:45pm EST
  • I wonder, if we got rid of all AA, would there be a significant change in society?

  • Some thoughts
  • Posted by Duncan at EdPond.blogspot.com on November 3, 2009 at 11:45pm EST
  • Personally, I know the discrimination exist because I am a victim of it.

    Does my experience prevent me to success? Yes. But not to the point that I can't find any White that is gracious and understanding.

    Look at the fact that Obama received a great potion of White vote, I have to say this is a great county and that White is, in general, quite open minded.

    For Black, Hispanic and Native American to make the case, I think the Asian should be included in the theory.

    In an ideal world where all K12 kids are given equal opportunities to access the study material, the Higher Education debate can be simplified.

    For family with Internet access, the disadvantage claim can hardly stand.

  • Roger that, Roger Clegg
  • Posted by Chuck on November 4, 2009 at 12:45am EST
  • No one pinpoints the groupthink, double standards, and rank unfairness of racial and gender preferences in university life better than Roger Clegg.

    Clegg cuts through the gibberish and faux research to demonstrate repeatedly how students and faculty alike cringe then look away when faced with the painful reality of students ill-prepared for college work.

    It is always a pleasure to read his lucid prose and logical turn of phrase.

  • Posted by Ed on November 4, 2009 at 7:30am EST
  • Amen Roger!

    Keep up the good fight against racial and ethnic group preferences in elite college, graduate and professional school admissions, as well as in hiring and promotions.

    1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WILL NOT WORK TO INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF BLACKS.

     

    2. THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE BLACK REPRESENTATION IS TO BETTER PREPARE THEM AT THE K-12 LEVEL OF EDUCATION BY FIXING THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

     

     

     

    I personally favor socioeconomic AA and a race and ethnic group BLIND admissions process. However, even socio-economic AA will not solve the problem for increasing the small numbers of blacks in elite schools, because the poorest Asians/whites from families with annual incomes under the poverty line and parents with only a high school education or less, OUTPERFORM on objective measures (SATs, testing, academic achievement, etc..) the richest blacks from families with annual incomes of over $70K (in 1995 dollars)or more and parents with college degrees. Therefore, if one is to use socioeconomic factors, without the use of race, black numbers will still be low.

     

     

     

    So, what is one to do? Obviously, the applicant, regardless of race, should be better prepared at the k-12 level before entering the Ivies/Elites. This is the only way to solve the problem. The causes for the under performance of rich and affluent blacks, despite their abundance of financial and academic resources, are unknown and more research needs to be done to find the causes. These causes may include the "culture" of blacks in general, but for one to suggest cultural differences between different racial and ethnic groups as a cause will most certainly elicit charges of racism from the race preferentialists and pro race based AA advocates. Even for one to ask blacks and others to change their cultures is politically incorrect and don't even think of suggesting "innate differences" between the groups.

     

     

     

    Elite college admissions are not only decided upon with the use of the SAT I and II tests, but also with the holistic approach. You must ask the question, "Why are higher performing and academically more proficient dirt-poor Asian Americans denied in favor of lower performing rich affluent blacks/Latinos in admissions?" This was the case when the "Comprehensive Review Admissions Policy" was examined at UCLA. This policy is similar to the one used at the Ivies.

     

     

     

    The use of holistic factors and other "soft factors" in admissions is biased against Asian Americans, mainly because of the stereotypes used against them by the admissions committees, with no basis in truth. These schools will tell you that better academically prepared Asians are not as well rounded or cannot write a better essay, have less outstanding extra-curricular activities, and are less passionate and motivated, and possess less character than less academically prepared, race-preferred black or Latino applicants, and EVEN white applicants who are less qualified by objective measures in their biased opinions. This, of course, is an outright lie due mainly to racist stereotyping and cultural bias against Asian American applicants. Also, the outcomes of the students who are better academically prepared graduate at a much higher rate than the less prepared. The less prepared, if they graduate at all, will graduate at bottom of the class, taking the least rigorous courses of study. The Asian/white FAILURE TO GRADUATE rates are 1/2 the black FAILURE TO GRADUATE rates. The Asian graduation rate is even higher than the white graduation rate. This is generally true in the Ivies/Elites and even in the US service academies, such as the US Naval Academy.

     

  • Posted by Ed on November 4, 2009 at 8:15am EST
  • To chaosakita

    You asked, "I'm wondering - what is the innate disparity of education between races anyways? According to the Duke study, in the three listed groups (< $50k, $50k-$100k, >$100k), Asians and Latinos had about the same income distribution, yet had different GPAs for both college and high school and different SAT scores. Could this imply that there is something innate (whether inherited or environmental) that needs to be addressed with such programming?" http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/790609-do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students-68.html
    FACTS:
    1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white/Asian children from families below the poverty line.
    2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white/Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
    For more facts, please click on :
    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#APPENDIX%20B

     

    I don't think any applicant should be subjected to a racial, ethnic or religious quota, whether or not they are white, Asian, Latino, black or native American. Admissions to the elite colleges should be race blind and ethnic group blind. The admissions committees should not have to ask for the race or ethnicity of the applicant. They could use any standard or criteria they see fit for admissions, but leave race and ethnicity out of the process.

    From the book, "America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible" by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, Simom and Schuster, 1997 in Chapter 14, titled "Higher Learning", in Table 4 labeled, "Number and Percent of Black, White, and Asian Students with High SAT Scores, 1981 and 1995": Source; The College Board, Ethnic Data on Scoring, 1981 and 1995, the figures and percentages for each score level are charted.

     

    For example, in 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Math,107 Blacks scored between 750 and 800, 509 Blacks scored between 700 and 749, 1,437 Blacks scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Blacks was 2,053 or 2.0% of all Black test takers. Total > 700 was 616 or 0.6% or six tenths of 1 percent. Total > 750 was 107 or 0.1% or one tenth of 1 percent.

     

    In 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers, in the Verbal, 184 Blacks scored between 700 and 800, 465 Blacks scored between 650 and 699, and 1,115 Blacks scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 1,764 or 1.7% of Black test takers. Total > 700 was 184 or 0.15% or less than two tenths of 1 percent.

     

    In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 9,519 Whites scored between 750 and 800, 29,774 Whites scored between 700 and 749, and 51,306 Whites between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Whites was 90,599 or 13.4% of all White test takers. Total > 700 was 39,293 or 5.8%. Total > 750 was 9,519 or 1.4%.

     

    In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Verbal, 8,978 Whites scored between 700 and 800, 19,272 scored between 650 and 699, and 36,700 Whites scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 64,950 or 9.6%.Total > 700 was 8,978 or 1.3%.

     

    In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 3,827 Asians scored between 750 and 800, 7,758 Asians scored between 700 and 749, and 9,454 Asians scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Asians was 21,039 or 25.8%. Total > 700 was 11,585 or 14.2%. Total > 750 was 3,827 or 4.7%.

     

    In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Verbal, 1,476 Asians scored between 700 and 800, 2,513 Asians scored between 650 and 699, and 4,221 Asians scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 8,190 or 10%. Total > 700 was 1,476 or 1.8%.

     

    Therefore, in reference to the above data for 1995, Asians out perform the other two groups at the highest levels of the SAT 1 scores in terms of rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and above in both the Math and the Verbal of the SAT 1 Test. In fact, in the 1999 data given by the College Board: Performance by Ethnic Groups, the rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and 750 and above has risen for the Asian group both independent of and relative to the other two groups.

     

    In 1995, there were only 107 Blacks with a Math score of 750 or above or 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent) of the total number of Black test takers.

     

    There were 9,519 Whites with a Math score of 750 or above or 1.4% of the total number of White test takers. There were 3,827 Asians with a Math score of 750 or above or 4.7% of the total number of Asian test takers.

     

    Asians out perform Whites at 3.4 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 1.4%).

     

    Asians out perform Blacks at 47 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 0.1% or one tenth of one percent).

     

    More recent data of this nature is not released by the College Board to the general public any more because this data is racially sensitive and *politically incorrect*, but it is the damn truth.

     

  • Kevin, Kevin, Kevin...
  • Posted by Bob on November 4, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • I do not read Roger as saying that redress should not occur. Instead, what I read him saying is that continued discrimination is not the best way to address it.

    Affirmative Action as it currently exists was a simplistic, knee jerk, short term solution which was not very well thought out and certainly had no data at it's inception that would give anyone any semblance of confidence in its outcomes. If it were effective than we would not still be debating it today and everyone would be convinced that it is the right way to even the playing field. Even a child can figure out that two wrongs don't make it right.

    I applaud the authors for attempting to provide some data to reframe the argument to try to get to a society where oppertunity and access are equal!

  • Kevin, Kevin, redux
  • Posted by Roger Mortimer on November 4, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • I find so many fallacies with Kevin's assertions (as others have).

    Roger Clegg is not "pretending" that race doesn't exist; rather he asserts that race should not be a basis to grant (in some cases significant) admissions preferences. And in fact he is "not pretending" at all - he is taking race into account by demanding that the the costs and benefits of the practice should be examined! Merely because that is a wholly uncomfortable discussion for some does not substantiate a claim of ignoring race - in fact - the opposite appears to be the case - because lots of racial discrimination is taking place, he is proposing we look at the practice critically.

    And I welcome Kevin's suggestion to engage in economically based affirmative action. Go ahead, Kevin, and urge competitive universities (and industry and government, for that matter) to do this. It simply couldn't be done without causing enormous angst. Every competitive institution knows it - and they know the results beforehand. Such a program would benefit less well off Asians and Whites, and reduce even further the numbers of Black, Hispanic and Native American participants. Be careful what you ask for. And the result that would obtain underscores Jonathon Cohen's excellent point above regarding the achievement gap, the real elephant in the room.

    And I wholly disagree with Kevin's assertion that Roger Clegg is blaming the victim in pointing to lack of fathers in homes and other negative factors. Many reacted with a similar negative tone to Moynihan's studies about the emerging bleak trends in black families in the 60's, and I think they were wrong then as Kevin is wrong now. The issue isn't one of blame, but rather simply which life strategies statistically tend to work. There is a negative cause and effect for most in having children out of wedlock in circumstances where they cannot be properly cared for, and this is not as much of a blame statement as it is simply one of sound life strategy, especially in a fast changing, global, knowledge based economy. It is sensitive for some because it invariably touches upon issues of sexual irresponsibility, but it is something that must be discussed openly. And I think it condescending and often racist to be fatalistic in terms of the capability of any group of people to make sound life choices and engage in sound life strategies. All are capable of doing so, and any open and frank discussion about changing some of the cultural factors that exist does not conflate to blaming the "victim".

  • The Iceberg of Racism
  • Posted by Rajendra Sran on November 4, 2009 at 2:45pm EST
  • Most of the ways racism plays itself out are hidden from view: It's unaware, cutural, institutional, and internalized.

    AA is but one way of trying to reddress it. It is inadequate. We need a radical re-orientation on how social psychology manifests in a racist society.

    Racism is separate and distinct from other, ongoing, changing forms of discrimination and oppression like sexism and classism. At one and the same time, however, racism is inextricably bound up with these. Our society constructs, rewards and rationalizes as "meritocracy" what amounts to a kleptocracy.

    "I am a firm believer that what you reward," someone writes above, "you will get more of, and what you fail to reward, you will get less of. Presently, we reward 'I am entitled because of my race, so give me something I could not earn on merit.' Naturally, we get more of that entitlement attitude."

    Substitute, say, "I am entitled because of my WEALTH," and you get taxpayer bailouts of the wealthy instead of the poor. Throughout history the wealthy of all societies have felt threatened by the population they have been stealing from. They're response? "Adopt policies that will make us even richer or we will all sink." In better times, "Let us make rules to foster our amassing even greater wealth and it will be good for the whole society. You'll be safe."

    When the latter results in a panic there's recourse to the former: "We screwed the workers and consumers and brought social ruin with our greed (not merit! hardly virtue!); We're too big to fail." The rest of us reward such behavior. I call it "Internalized Classism." Has nothing to do with coming from single parent families because, among other things too numerous to name (the hidden part of the iceberg), such a high percentage of our men are surveilled more than others and therefore are locked in the Prison Industrial Complex. No, that's not it.

    It's because we are too cowed to peer deeply enough into our political economy and act. Learned helplessness. Cornel West: "Everyone is responsible for her or his choices. Its just that under certain circumstances it becomes harder and harder to make good choices." Folks living on a different planet in a truly just society might be clucking their tongues at us. Those folks might define virtue as a society striving to pull off economic and social equality. Takes considerably more than Affirmative Action.

    Thich Nat Hahn, the Buddhist philosopher, writes, "The affluent society and the deprived society inter-are. The wealth of one society is made of the poverty of the other. The truth is that everything contains everything else. We cannot just be, we can only inter-be. We are responsible for everything that happens around us."

  • Posted by static on November 8, 2009 at 4:45am EST
  • It's a fascinating question why racism against Asians is so easily tolerated. Asian isn't even a "race", it's the largest and most diverse continent on Earth- unless you want to claim that Pakistanis, Indonesians, and Chinese are the same race or ethnicity. In fact, the whole concept of race as considered in the USA is racist. With more Americans choosing to marry outside of their race- it's going to be more and more difficult to classify us without becoming like South Africa. David Weinberger in "Everything is Miscellaneous" relates the case of a South African whose race changed three times during his life, as the sordid rules of bloodlines changed, once forcing him to divorce his wife because their marriage had become illegal. Who are you people to throw these labels upon us? You say your categories are more broad than the South Africans? You say there isn't racism against this bizarre concoction of "Asian" you have created, so that it is fair to discriminate against "Asians" in favor of "White" students? I really wonder what box my multi-racial children are going to have to check...

    You want to help give children better opportunities? Start with Head Start at age 2- get the children out of the home environments where they are under-stimulated. Of course, that puts the blame where it belongs, which could be unpopular.

    Stop lying. Stop believing in race.

    Paul Graham "Lies We Tell Kids" http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html
    "Some parents feel a strong adherence to an ethnic or religious group and want their kids to feel it too. This usually requires two different kinds of lying: the first is to tell the child that he or she is an X, and the second is whatever specific lies Xes differentiate themselves by believing.

    Telling a child they have a particular ethnic or religious identity is one of the stickiest things you can tell them. Almost anything else you tell a kid, they can change their mind about later when they start to think for themselves. But if you tell a kid they're a member of a certain group, that seems nearly impossible to shake."

  • Posted by Ed on November 10, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • http://www.acri.org/blog/2009/06/23/racial-preferences-in-service-academies/

     

    Racial Preferences in Service Academies

     

    The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) published a 20-page study (PDF) titled, “Racial, Ethnic and Gender Preferences in Admissions to the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy.” Among other things, the authors found that both service academies lower standards for black admittees, and the academic qualifications gap between blacks and whites is “substantial.”

     

    The gap between Army admittees is smaller than the Navy’s gap, and the one between whites and Hispanics is smaller. The study concludes that Hispanics don’t benefit from preferences in the Army’s admissions, and there’s no evidence that Asians receive preferences at either academy.

     

    “In fact, there is evidence that the Asian applicants with the same academic qualifications find it somewhat more difficult to obtain admission than do their white counterparts at both academies.”

     

    According to the report, the tougher the school’s standards, the more it uses race preferences. No surprises there.

     

    In a section titled, “Computing the Odds of Admission,” the study shows that the odds of black-to-white admissions is 4.44 to 1, Hispanic-to-white odds 3.32 to 1, and Asian-to-white odds .67 to 1.2.

     

    “[W]e find preferences in favor of blacks at both academies, preferences in favor of Hispanics at Navy but not at Army, and preferences against Asians at both academies. We find that the odds ratios for blacks and Hispanics relative to whites are significantly greater at the U.S. Naval Academy than at the U.S. Military Academy.”

     

    The implications of admitting students with much lower qualifications are far-reaching. As the study notes, these students will have a more difficult time academically and graduate at lower rates.

     

    Whites and Asians with superior credentials are rejected in favor of less qualified blacks.

     

    “At the Naval Academy, 131 Asian rejectees (41 percent) and 2,640 white rejectees (42 percent) have both math and verbal SATs equal to or higher than the black admittee math and verbal SAT medians. There are 69 Asians (50 percent) and 1,232 whites (25 percent) rejected by the U.S. Naval Academy who attained a class rank equal or better to the rank of the black admittee median.”

     

    Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009, by La Shawn Barber and is filed under "General ". You can leave a response here, or send a Trackback from your own site.

     

     

     

    ...whole wide world
  • Posted by Ed on November 14, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • http://www.nas.org/documents/Taming_the_River_2.pdf

    Selling Merit Down the River
    July 06, 2009 By Russell K. Nieli
    Excerpted from pages 21 and 22

    The River Pilots' concern here may be misplaced, however, for even if black and
    Latino students do earn substantially lower grades than whites and Asians, they may have
    just as good a chance as the members of those higher-performing groups of gaining
    entrance to competitive graduate and professional schools. The admissions boost for
    being black at many of the most competitive law schools, medical schools, business
    schools, and graduate programs is often huge -- larger even in standard deviation terms
    than the undergraduate college boost -- and black undergraduates all know this. The
    post-graduate boost for being Latino is less but still substantial. Mediocre grades for a
    black or Latino student is not the same impediment to getting into a good graduate or
    professional school as it is for a white or Asian.

     

    Consider, for example, medical schools. According to the American Association
    of Medical Colleges, the average college GPA in the pre-med college science courses for
    all whites who entered an American medical school in 2007 was 3.63, and for Asians a
    near-identical 3.62. For blacks, however, it was only 3.29. This is by itself a very
    significant difference but the spread of the black scores was much wider than that of
    either the whites or Asians (black SD .43, white and Asian SD each .29), indicating that
    significant numbers of blacks with science GPAs as low as 2.9 or 3.0 were accepted into
    medical schools, scores that would virtually preclude whites or Asians. Latino science
    GPAs were roughly halfway between those of the blacks and the higher-scoring whites
    and Asians (3.45 mean).

     

    Scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) tell a similar story. The
    median score on the basic science part of the MCAT for a black admitted to medical
    school in 2007 was equal to that of a white at only the 14th percentile of white admits, and
    of an Asian at only the 10th percentile of Asian admits. In other words, 86% of whites
    and 90% of Asians entering medical schools did better on the MCAT basic science
    section than the median black. Once again, Latino scores were roughly halfway between
    the blacks and the higher-scoring Asians and whites.20 This same pattern was shown in
    earlier studies of MCAT scores. For instance, a Rand Corporation study of admissions
    policies at ten medical schools in the late 1970s found a black/white gap in MCAT scores
    well over a standard deviation, a Chicano/white gap slightly less than one SD. The Rand
    study calculated that a black or Chicano applicant with a better then 50% chance of
    admission to these ten medical schools, had that applicant been held to the same entrance
    standards as whites, would have reduced his admissions chances to only about one-intwenty,
    or 5%.21 From a 5% admissions chance up to a 50% or better chance as the bonus
    for being black or Chicano -- can anyone imagine that this will have no effect on many
    of those seeking to gain entry into the medical profession?

     

    The law school story is similar. Consider for instance the University of Michigan
    Law School, one of the ten most prestigious in the nation. Like virtually all competitive
    law schools, Michigan places a great emphasis on the LSAT, a test of several kinds of
    aptitudes needed for the successful completion of a rigorous law school curriculum.
    Scores on the LSAT range from 120 to 180 (much like the 200 to 800 scoring system on
    the SAT) with the average score of those admitted to the highest ranking schools being
    around 170 (at the lowest ranked schools admits average around 150). In 2004, a year
    after the Supreme Court's Grutter decision approving Michigan Law's racial preference
    program, the median LSAT score for both white and Asian admits was 169, just under
    the typical score earned by whites at top-rated Harvard and Yale. For black admits,
    however, the average score was only 160. Now a 160 is certainly a respectable LSAT
    score, but for a white or Asian such a score might gain an entry ticket to a middle-range
    law school like Boston University, the University of Washington, or Rutgers, but never to
    a top-ten school like Michigan. Blacks essentially compete only with one another for
    entry to the nations' top law schools, all of which practice a system of de facto race
    norming and (slightly flexible) quota admissions (though none of them will admit this
    publically). Black LSAT scores need not be, and usually are not, competitive with those
    of whites and Asians. Indeed, at Michigan in 2004, a 75th percentile black admit had an
    LSAT score (164) significantly lower than that of a 25th percentile white (167) or Asian
    (167) admit. Latino LSAT scores were much better than those of the blacks (mean 166)
    but still significantly behind the whites and Asians.

     

    The lowering of the bar for underrepresented minorities extends to the college
    GPA as well. A study of Michigan Law School applicants submitted during the litigation
    over the Grutter case indicated that in 1995 the average GPA for white admits was 3.68,
    that of blacks only 3.33. Of students with college GPAs in the 3.25 to 3.45 range and
    LSAT scores near the 75th percentile of the national distribution, 51 whites applied to
    Michigan in 1995, 14 Asians, and 10 blacks. But only one of the whites in this credential
    range was admitted to Michigan's elite law school that year, while none of the Asians
    were. Blacks had a much easier time of it: all of the blacks in this credential range were
    accepted though their grades and test scores would have virtually precluded them from
    admission were they white or Asian.23 How reasonable is it to think that knowledge of
    such lowered standards will not filter down to the black sophomores and juniors at
    various Michigan colleges who plan on attending Michigan or some other elite law
    school? And given the knowledge of such lowered standards, how reasonable is it to
    think that this will not negatively affect the behavior of many of those who know they
    can get into great law schools like Michigan's without having to match the performance
    of their white and Asian classmates?

     

  • Both sides oversimplify
  • Posted by KLS , Licensed Clinical Psychologist on November 16, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • I am the white, upper middle-class parent of two young adults who as children attended inner city public elementary and middle schools. Both subsequently attended the most academically rigorous private high school in the city. All the private high schools in our large city openly acknowledged that the kids from the public schools would take a semester to "catch up" to their peers educated in the private system. This proved true for both my children, who each earned a 3.5 their first semester, and then did substantially better thereafter. Both children had every early advantage except that of high quality education, despite being identified as gifted and placed into supposedly rigorous honors classes.

    For children without their extra-curricular advantages, the poor K-8 education would probably have prevented them from being accepted to the best private high schools. If we extrapolate, kids from inferior high schools undoubtedly require a semester of college to catch up. My guess is that many of the underrepresented minorities come from inferior high schools such as the ones my children escaped. They might have straight A's at those schools, as my children did in their k-8 education, but those A's weren't worth much. In short, when my kids got to high school, I witnessed firsthand the effects of a playing field that was not level.

    Thus the lower GPAs of at least some of those kids when they hit the next stage. Since all four years of grades are averaged, that first year can substantially affect the overall GPA at graduation from both high school and then college. While one might hope that high SATs would reflect the greater rigor of the school (both kids were National Merit Scholars with 800's), Stereotype Threat provides a compelling explanation for why even middle class blacks do so badly on high stakes tests.

    All that being said, I'm not in favor of affirmative action in general, nor am I in favor of abolishing high stakes tests. What I would like to see is that kids of reasonably equivalent GPA's be admitted independent of race. Underrepresented minorities have four years, even if they're in crummy school, to do well in the setting they're in. But since the settings are so disparate, use the stereotype threat data determined by Professor Steel in his research at Stanford to augment scores appropriately. If African Americans – or girls – do worse on math by 30 points, add them back in. If Asians do worse on reading in stereotype threat type situations, by 10 points, give them those 10 points. That way the quantifiable data would be more truly equivalent, and there wouldn't be some random "help them out" mentality.

  • Posted by GS on December 4, 2009 at 9:30pm EST
  • RE: KLS

    You are a racist. How can you possibly say that if one group does worse on a test than another, everyone in that group should just have those points added back in. That is collective punishment. I'm a Jew, why don't you give me the following advantages:

    1) I should get a 2 second head start in every 100 meter dash I run in
    2) When I box, I get to use steel knuckles.
    ...
    Wait that sounds like bull doesn't it? Thats because it is. I thought we eliminated people like you back in the 1960s but I guess racism and sexism can never be stopped.

  • K-20
  • Posted by Debi , Elementary Counselor at Everett School District on January 17, 2010 at 3:15pm EST
  • Interesting to read all these comments for one who works at the K-5 level. As diverse as our kinder's look may be as diverse as where they start their education. Some speak not a word of english, some who speak english have no clue about which is a number which is a letter, and some are reading chapter books. Some miss school to go on a family vacation learning about other places and people some miss because it is really too much work to get the kid off to school each day. Some come hungry while others already at 5 or 6 are heading down the road to obesity. But after 20+ years I have seen a kid anywhere in this mix survive and thrive of course most often I see the little ones aspire to only the level of those before them in their family.

    What is it then that makes those few irregardless of background thrive? What is it that leads those with "advantage" to wallow? Six years to graduate? What makes that O.K.? How wonderful to be able to be a student for six years - think back ahh to be in college again. Where are the longitudinal studies? Sign me up.